@christophertaylor9100 I gotta ask though, in a previous short he talked about the middle-east or so used extreme language i.e. words like love or hate. Why did the people of the region use extemes.. more often (assuming that they did, I never read any other writings from the area.
@@ConservativeMirror okay watch IP s other videos on this topic, and its hilarious you use christian morals to judge Jewish morals, but use it to disprove christianity. Do you realize how insane that is ? What i think its good come from Christianity but i hate Christianity because its evil because of my judaism misinterpretation!
@@ConservativeMirroryou would be stoned for violating the Sabbath because its Gods holy day of rest so when someone breaks it they are 1. Being selfish and prioritizing themselves and 2. Insulting God. A non virgin would be stoned because she lied about being a virgin and could give her new husband a std or baby trap him with another mans baby.
Please, this passage is NOT about someone's child being "rude" or even "drinking a little too much." It is about ELDER ABUSE. And, as IP said, the laws were not meant to be read exactly the way we do today. Take "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," for example. It is not about an ox, it means even animals (therefore everyone) has the right the get something in return for their work. Silver, sheep, gold, whatever. Can you imagine someone going: "I told my son to be home by 12:00, he got home at 3:00, so you know....".
Point three: the verse is mis quoted. It does not say child, it indicates they are repeatedly drunk and unruley, and imply the elders have done everything they can to marketer opportunity for change.
So basically the Old Testament isn't recommending the punishments be enforced, but rather the punishments themselves show us the level of severity the corresponding sin has in the eyes of God.
He did way more than adultery. Lots of jews believe the Messiah they believe is coming will actually be a sinner because something about a sacrifice in a temple for him
@@magichobbiest3425 the idea is they believe they are capable of redeeming themselves before god "alone"... despite the many complications that come with it
@@reyis_here945 Bruh, a child is a child. If you were a father. Your 20 year old son would still be your child. Not all childs are 5 year olds yk. (This may be a joke and I maybe missing it)
@@reyis_here945 however I can see where the confusion arises. The author here was using the definition a son or daughter of any age, not a young offspring of an adult.
Tbh, he seems off. He seems like a robot. Something is off about him. That doesn’t sit right with me. And I’m speaking this in the name of Holy Spirit. Something is off with that guy.
People forget the Torah is a code of civil law, moral law, and ceremonial law. We literally see in the Torah that men would be put on trial by the elders to determine crimes. That is civil law, it can change. Ceremonial laws change with the covenants, and moral law is eternal.
Another thing is that that passage talks about late teens to adults and not children as in kids, because it also says "if they get drunk" (something like that)
So should they be executed or not? If yes that is pretty barbaric and if not why has god changed his mind on morality if he represents an objective morality?
@@ewanwolyniec2304 Again, the stoning rules are not literal. They would be deserving of that punishment, but it would not actually be carried out. Otherwise, David would have been stoned to death for adultery.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 So they are deserving of such punishment and if they did stone people for they they didn’t do anything wrong then right? Not just that but in numbers 15:32-36 they find a man collecting sticks on the sabbath and god directly commands Moses and Aaron to stone him to death I presume you agree that was just and right then?
More important fact is that ancient law codes in general tended to give the death penalty for every offense. But no one took the penalty literally. A well known anecdote is about Draco, the author of the infamous “Draconian Code” which is the earliest known code for Athens. This code gives the death penalty for pretty much everything including the ancient equivalent of littering and jaywalking. This is why the word “draconian” means “harsh or severe” According to legend Draco justified his code by saying “ I think minor offenses are worthy of death and I can’t think of a worse penalty for major offenses” But there is no evidence that these penalties were ever carried out.
@@reyis_here945 no, ancient law is not like modern law, the penalties attached are not prescriptive in the way modern laws are, they were more symbolic, saying that you will be killed for doing something was more a way of saying “this is really bad”, it was like parents saying “stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” which taken literally is child abuse, but kids know they are not going to be beaten
@@Michael-bk5nz I'm not saying self-defense is the same as manslaughter (regardlessof time period), I'm saying its not like those concepts are brand new or completely original
I remember a story in the bible where a women found guilty of adultery was about to stoned to death by people but maybe I'm just misremembering or you are not being honest. It's in the bible btw. Gospel of Mathew if I remember correctly. Edit: So yeah, idk about no one took the penalty seriously there. I think they did.
@@BongBing11 Based on what he said here, probably that if you don't take a literal, word for word understanding of every book of the bible then you're being inconsistent.
Well, I'd like to know why is it wrong to be arbitrary apart from the Christian worldview, since God is the only rational basis for logic and morality to begin with. God is non-arbitrary in His thinking, and since we are made in His image, He expects us to be non-arbitrary as well. Unfortunately, there are Christians that behave arbitrarily, by not holding the Bible as their ultimate standard, for example. But this has no relevancy to whether or not the Bible is true, so Dan is probably engaging in the fallacy of abusive ad hominem. I would ask Dan to give an account of his worldview, and ask if his worldview can provide rational justification for either absolute morality or laws of logic.
@@KSA_175x but what is the law? most people think its everything the jews wrote. but what if it just meant the 10 commandments? many of the other texts in the torah were expansions of the law as then people saw fit, just like how God banned divorce but the people wanted it to be legalized. there were records of jews making a law about the sabbath where carrying anything heavier than an egg would be considered work, and thus breaking the sabbath rest. that is just one example. jesus himself showed in many instances to be breaking these laws that the jews added to the commandments, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath, eating with unclean hands, befriending people who should be shunned, and so on.. most people dont take the time to understand context, sad but thats just how life is nowadays, people only want to believe their first assumption
@@KSA_175x He didn't abolish the moral law, we are no longer under the ceremonial and judicial laws, otherwise we would still be required to make sacrifices, get circumcised, etc. The whole NT shows that those aren't necessary.
Hey IP. I'd like to ask a clarifying question. If you are saying that the mosiac law was to represent an ideal law structure, does that mean that the stoning of children was meant to be ideal or are you saying it was more of a teaching tool rather than a "here's how things would be in a perfect world"? For the former, stoning children would be seen as ideal. For the latter, the Torah would be using an extreme example to make a point about how children should treat thier parents in an ideal world. Love your content and keep bringing the Biblical/logical Sass. EDIT: i just re-warched the short a couple times. Nevermind. i missed it the first time. Keep up the great work dude 👍
@@benellison6232 this "kinda" off base, but still relevant to the discussion, we have to accept the reality that even today "people put their infants in dumpsters" (and yes I'm saying that as an extreme, but I'm also acknowledging that it does happen... and that it's evidence of stagnancy)
Plus the punishment of Sin is death. If you disobey your parents it is a sin. Thankfully Jesus took our place and died in our place so we don’t have to die for the sins we commit.
What if your parents are awful? I think if your parents are really bad parents and don't give you good advice, than disobeying them is what you should do.
@@enderdude7828 Ephesians 6:1 should give you a bit of clarity "Obey your parents in the Lord" The acceptable disobedience is only when obeying the Lord goes against obeying your parents, because God has a higher priority. Also advice is different from a command, you can disregard anyone's advice at any time, doesn't mean it's wise to do so. If your parents provide bad advice, you should seek better advisors, people who are actually wise. And even in disobedience or disregarding, treat them with honor and respect, never failing the command to honor them and the command to love them as yourself.
Remember; for all you atheists out there that are actually beginning to see the Light- you must be reborn to live under God's Grace, for you are Justified.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
If you read the passge fully it talks about the child being drunk and something else its wasnt talking about when a child is acting like a brat it's a grown man dishourning and disgracing hes parents
The Talmud mentions this but also expands that since it says 'a son' but not a father, it only applies to those that are legally adults but not yet a married, ie, still living in their father's house. Some sages even further add it doesn't apply to anyone who COULD be a father, regardless of whether they actually are, and thus it applies only to a 40 week period immediately after coming of age. Not sure I buy that last one. I do caution that 'grown' in this case is often taken as the bar mitzvah age, ie, 13
@@professorhaystacks6606 where did you get that from I doubt when talking about a drunk person it's refering to a 13 yr old. And where did you hear it's necessarily not a father This is the same thing Muslims do they point to Jewish sources without actually giving references to their claims from the SCRIPTURES In some cases, "son" can be used to refer to a man who is already married, especially in a context where the speaker is emphasizing their relationship or authority over the man. For example: - In Genesis 32:5, Jacob refers to his sons as "my sons" even though they are grown men with their own families. - In Exodus 21:5, a slave is referred to as the "son" of his master, even if he is an adult. - In 1 Samuel 24:11, David refers to Saul's servants as "sons" even though they are adults. And yes 13 was the legal age of adulthood in those time that action of him getting drunk enforces the view that he's not just a teenager or a child that doesn't know what he's doing
@@MarkelMathurin niether is leave your child to die, but that still happened The only difference here is that was a legal law And that's if we're being literal about the Hebrew word child
Why are people STILL asking 2000 years later why Christians don't follow the old covenant? It's like they never tried to gain even a sunday school level of understanding.
Jesus agreed with the old testament stating that he was here not to change but to uphold the law and that not one thing should be changed. Pick easier targets.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t the verse following say, “He is a drunkard and a slugger?” I think it’s safe to say that we’re not talking literal kids. Also, if I remember correctly, this verse was talking about bestowing actual curses on your parents, not just your casual teen rebellion.
It's odd that Internet Atheists feel so eager to cite Biblical-era Old Testament standards, and the history about that, but most of their arguments consist of incorrect assumptions outside of what Old Testament scholars directly say about these issues.
Honestly I think this response is kind of missing the point of the critique. Like... If God tells you to kill your child for disobeying. Is it better or worse if people actually follow that command regularly? Well no... God is still telling you to do something terrible, he is sanctioning a terrible act regardless if people actually did it. I mean imagine if a different God told his followers in a holy book that any person that reads the bible should get a death penalty. Would it really matter if people actually performed this act when you criticize that religion or that God? He is not criticizing the laws of an ancient civilization, he is criticizing the morality of a religion and a God.
That's like in the old testament when God told Abraham to walk up the hill and kill his son Isaac like a sacrifice, very sad.. Then just when he was about to do it God stopped Abraham telling him he didn't have to actually do it, and made a goat run up the mountain to him. The chapters always called Isaac his "only" son, his heir. So his father being made to sacrifice his only son for a 'good cause' sounds like a parallel to God the Father & Jesus. Harsh event to go through in life, but it's there.. realistic as they say 🥲 ed: anyway that's a good distinction you brought up there, important perspective to think of for us I think. 🤔
@@unripetheberrby6283 Well yeah that is one time God spared a child, but he did killed multiple children in the bible directly or by ordering someone else to do it. Of course like the first born of egypt, the children mauled by bears by command of elisha, the genocide of the canaanites including the children etc. I mean if we want a closer paralel to the abrahamic story, in the book of judges 11 jephthah did sacrificed her only child to God because he promised he would do it if God helps him with a war, and he did sacrifice his only child. And God didn't stop that one. Regardless if these events happened or not... and if one is an atheist or a secular scholar they think most likely didn't happen. Still it is a completely valid criticism to criticize the morality of a God who is written to do these things or who is said to command these things.
I love Paul's teaching that the value of the law is to teach you good and bad, but we are under the new covenant and should just strive to be good. I study strictly as a lense to the past.
Ah the classic “old covenant scary why Christian hypocrites” These people never registered to actually ask that question and understand the Christian position
@@reyis_here945i think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that these gotcha questions aren't really an effective means of persuasion when your audience can look up answers to these quick and often simplistic "gotcha" questions. it seems the level of discourse is slowly being elevated. tbat mihht just be wishful thinkong though
@@beelance8057 if they DID follow mosaic law, how did jesus save her? wouldn't they have just stoned her? you just proved his point. it wasnt a codified set of laws like we think of today.
The punishment of sin is death, separation from God after your life. Anytime in the law the word death apears it's not refering about ppls killing you, it's about the sin itself
The mental gymnastics are insane. "Death doesn't mean death". God is omnipresent, but you'll be "separated" from him. Religion actively impairs reason.
@@DarkMatter2525 I rlly don't know how this works tbh, that's what my religion teaches 2Tes 1:9"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might".Keep coping with eternal atoms, or the absurdity of big bang(atheist version)
In addition, existing cultural conventions probably allowed for worse - in all likelihood a father would have been justified in just beating his son to death without the need to bring his case to the elders at the gate. This law built upon the "do not murder" commandment and likely had the effect of forcing fathers to think clearly before doing anything rash. This was not a command to stone your child if he was disobedient but almost the exact opposite - extreme measures can only be taken after a due process was followed. Much of the law begins with a situation that sounds like established fact but is instead an allegation, and this is one of those kinds of laws.
they were prescriptive. God is not giving people hypotheticals. The Lord Jesus Christ said the law should be obeyed without neglecting the most important parts of the law which is judgment, mercy and faith. Matthew 23:23
That same passage also refers to the child as a “glutton and a drunkard.” People in Israel weren’t doing this thing to their 10 year-old son who didn’t put his toys away. It would have been done to someone who was always drunk and ate more food than the rest, likely causing others to starve and thus making him a murderer.
This is an interesting perspective, but wouldn't "it was meant to educate us on what justice would look like in an ideal setting" contradict your take on why slavery is not abolished as a part of the law? Your take on items such as slavery abolition was that the law was never meant to be perfect. But this new video says the law was meant to illustrate perfect or ideal circumstances. Am I missing something that reconciles these two views on the law?
I’ve taken laws like the one mentioned here as a way of taking judgement away from individuals (angry parents) and giving it to the community which would likely be more level headed
@@PurpleHeart99so can I ignore the ten commandments? Is that not under the old covenant? Wat else in the old testament can I ignore? Sin? Why do I have to jump thru hoops to understand?
@@theparodychannel7842 The ten commandments were to help the tribe of Israel learn how to live. The greatest commandments we have is to love God and others. The ten commandments do not have to be followed to a t but it makes sense to follow it. We have the greatest peace when we come to christ. So it makes sense not to put any idols before Him. It makes sense to treat your parents well. It is loving to not commit adultery against your spouse. It is good not to covet. We should love God and not take His name in vain. I know it is a lot to take in. I promise, God is good. He saved me more times than I can count. He loves you and I love you too.
I still don't think that "it was just an example" works well as a defense of a code that presents stoning your child for disobedience as a good idea. It's good that you personally believe in an upgraded moral code, but that bit is still a barbaric and primitive moral code.
- it's not a child, it's a grown man who lived with his parents, try to use that as an excuse to get out of punishment - It's a "cultural law" - And we still use capital punishment today ( and I'm not justifying it) primarily for sexual assailants
You contradicted the correct, 2nd point by the mistaken 1st point. Its a collection for judicial guidance, or better, it is a rule of justice BUT "In Your wrath, remember mercy." It all goes together. Those laws are 100% relevant now. Its a civil law that worked - we should do it, "remembering mercy".
It's a fine line, between no one following God's Word on these matters because they're sinful Human beings who mess up. And IP's possibility, that it was never intended to be seriously followed exactly. I'm not sure if I should agree... Although, i agree that it could make sense.
This is what I hate about atheist scientists on UA-cam thinking that just because they refute young earth creationism means they can talk about any topic related to religion
@@gianni206lmfao nah literally in the thousands of debates christians have lost literally 100% of them. I mean it's a MASSACRE this has long been a victorious war.
@@gianni206christians don't understand what things like critical thought or peer review even mean. So actually watching a debate with knowledge of how a debate works is maddening with christians because they don't understand basic ideas about how facts become accepted as facts.
@@gamemasterultima except when the criticism is based on bad interpretation of scripture. I guess you atheists can’t accept that you aren’t Steven hawking just because you don’t believe in god
In this particular law, the emphasis is on “the PEOPLE will stone him (implying a trial will take place), not the parents”. The parents cannot judge the child’s sin for themselves.
I think a good reminder is that while some commands from the Old Testament are still echoed in the New, we are still not to punish these sins with death. For example, the command against adultery still stands, but Christ had compassion on the woman who committed adultery and told her to go and sin no more. I think we need to do the same with people who commit similar sins condemned in both Testaments. Have compassion, and tell them to go sin no more.
This is also why we have the Talmud. A series of legal discussions and debates between many different experts and Rabbis over many centuries on how to interpret the Tanakh. Not everything in the Talmud is written in stone though. You oftentimes find one Rabbi say one thing but another says the complete opposite and sometimes even a third opinion alongside that. Plus, many things in the Tanakh and even in the Gospels have to be taken in a specific cultural and linguistic context, which the first guy (not IP) clearly is unaware of, either on knowingly or not
Stones ares "hard" ideas, to die from stoning is akin to Paul who said "I die daily" - the ego perishes removing fraud/gyp, availing you to what IsReal
You are biased. You csn use the new covenant excuse all you like, but if the buble is gods word, you should, logicslly, follow his example. I mean who elses example would you follow if not his? And you csnt question the genocide hes done since youre quesrioning god and thats a huge no no. Why only follow certain things and not others?
@@reyis_here945 surprised you didn't point out all the unnecessary and purposeful grammar mistakes. Seems you have a bad habit of pointing out the unnecessary. Or being fixated on the wrong issues. You may want to change that. Your claims and the claims you follow aren't going to help your case
Christ fulfilled the law, and we live under a new covenant. One of love and forgiveness and the pursuit of salvation through Christ. Also, the parodical son was not stoned for his disrespect. He was welcomed back with open arms when he repented.
The atheist also completely left out the part where the parents in this hypothetical situation explicitly state their son is a drunkard and trouble maker... So he's not a child and is a genuine menace to society. This is not about children
@@LilySage-mf7uf read my comment again. It's not talking about some "mere disobedience." It's discussing someone who is not only in open rebellion to parents but the entire community through their behavior. They are a drunkard and poison to the community, not a child with authority issues or someone who talks back on occasion. Also, refer back to what IP said. It's not a strict law code, but moreso judicial wisdom and guidance. It's not a hard fast rule. So it would not also be the case that a drunken degenerate would be executed. He might also be spared. It would come down to the circumstances and the full story that the judges would gain through investigation
Verse 20 says ‘he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’ It’s clearly not talking about a small child being stone for a temper tantrum. This is a grown man. Probably guilty of all sorts of other crimes as well.
@@AbyssicHate112 also Forest V. has been proven to be intellectually dishonest... the validity of his claims have been called into question by academics and non-academics of the like
This is where he loses me, because he is taking the worst of the scholars out there with the least Biblical validity, not because they are accurate or theologically correct, but because it appeals best to modern ears. He does this every time he reaches a verse or section that is uncomfortable, explaining it away as being not literal or symbolic.
The shellfish polyester argument is the loudest way to signal that you haven’t actually read the Bible. The second loudest way is to shout it at the top of your lungs.
The Talmud specifically says that the case of the Rebellious Son never actually occurred, since there were too many required details for a case to qualify. Similarly, an Eye for an Eye was never taken literally.
I notice he left out the part where the parents (plural) are to say to the elders "this son of ours is a glutton and a drunkard" - i.e. the part that clearly shows this is case law for ADULT children, not young unruly kids. Color me shocked at the dishonesty.
The scripture states that the parents say, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." So it was obviously not about a child.
@@ewuraamaetruwaasam7084 If you read and follow the Bible’s text and context, Christians are not under the old covenant of the Law, which served as the first step away from ancient polytheistic religions, they are under the new covenant of the Gospel of Faith, which served as the second step away from ritualistic religions, so we do not put any people to death any more.
Galatians, read pauls response to peters hypocrisy about the circumcized. While this response is correct IP. The underlying argument he is making is "if you follow part of the book, you should follow all of the book". And this is a major source of confusion generally across christendom even though its entirely addressed by paul in galatians in his treatise on faith vs law. Taken together both your explanations and galatians paints a vastly different picture of what Jewish faith was at the time, as well as just how deadly the literalism and legalism of the sanhedrin was.. Love these shorts, im a long time fan and have frequently quoted your videos and apologetics growing up. Thank you.
Another point it took the allocation of punishment away from the parent solely and placed it before a jury aka the elders of the town. Something Islam does not do.
It is written "The life of a murderer may not be redeemed." This implies the life of someone who commits any OTHER death-penalty crime COULD be redeemed. I don't know enough about ancient near-eastern culture to know what that would entail, though.
The guy completely ignored the important parts of that passage: 1. The child is brought by the parents before the judges (i.e. The law takes the power to kill away from the parents and into the court) 2. The accusation is "he is a glutton" (among other things) which, in a knife-edge culture where people were just above the starvation line, meant he was an indirect murderer. By being a glutton, he ate too much and someone starved. This was not a mere "unruliness". It was far more serious than that.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is the reference. The condemned is a drunkard and a glutton as well. Clearly the child is not a five year old. It is a grownup child.
What the first guy was saying was a massive understatement of the situation it was describing. Yes, it was if the child wouldn't listen to their parents, but it was more than that. It was them being stubborn and rebellious, and rebellious back then probably meant a whole lot more than it does now, and if pretty much every other method was attempted to dissuade them, and nothing worked. The type of person being described there was the type of person who'd almost certainly end up getting someone in the community killed by one method or another. And again, it's a last resort once pretty much everything else had been attempted. Also, while Israel didn't necessarily follow the Torah all of the time, that doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to. That being said, from a modern Christian perspective, those laws in the Torah were, I'm fairly certain, directed as legal laws which Israel was to have. But the Israel of today, and pretty much every other country, has different legal laws which we are to be submit to.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a circumstance in which it is morally okay to stone a child to death? I mean that is what you are defending right? Saying that this child was probably not only disobeying but he was doing all of this other stuff. That stuff then morally justified stoning him to death?
@@diegog1853 I think you're misunderstanding what the word "child" means. The context is using it to refer to offspring. In that way, literally everyone is a child of someone.
@@abbadon9693 okay... What you said didn't change anything at all. Including adults in a punishment doesn't make the punishment for children any better... I mean unless you are arguing that the passage implicitly excludes children which would be quite a dishonest interpretation of the text in my opinion. So again are you saying that there are some circumstances in which stoning to death offspring (in particular children) is justified? Like that is what your argument boils down to right? That under these other circumstances you are mentioning it is justified, but under the other circumstances it is not.
I'm with you, up to the point where it was suggested the law was not executed. It's clear that the Sanhedren of Christ's day were strictly observing the Torah. The important point was that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so much of that law was never Christian.
It doesn't say in Hebrew merely that if a son is unruly, but if he curses his parents, in the sense of him wanting them to die. Also, every law can be conditional and ruled a difficult case, due to other factors - being provoked purposely by parents in this case. We are to be informed by the Old Testament, the only Scriptures the Church had at first, except for the original compendium of JESUS' Sayings Matthew recorded during HIS Ministry, but even it tells us of the latter days and in those to listen to SOMEONE giving a Covenant in those days. In the Torah, "do these things for ever" is translating "le'olam", meaning for the age, not "le'ed", meaning for eternity. Absolam may be the only example of someone killed for wanting his father dead. David didn't want him dead, but Joab killed him, and it seems that the details show Joab was in the wrong, because David should have killed Amnon for raping Tamar, but felt too guilty over Bathsheba to do so, so Absolam had to deal justice to Amnon instead and hated his father for not lilling a rapist who raped Absolam's sister. It was a very difficult case. Not one case of that law in effect has ever been recorded. Joab was judged misusing it for politics, and David had him killed for misusing the claim against his son.
if that was true in the way he meant it there would be no israelite children left
This is key: the law did not mean "if he's being a brat" they meant "if he is being excessively rebellious and lacking respect"
@@christophertaylor9100 probably more extreme than even that tbh
Yeah it was more like you can't control the and their being a little Damien
@christophertaylor9100 I gotta ask though, in a previous short he talked about the middle-east or so used extreme language i.e. words like love or hate. Why did the people of the region use extemes.. more often (assuming that they did, I never read any other writings from the area.
@@rippedgoat3587 and yet somehow we have kids today... with arguably worse extremes, it's kinda universal
To get stoned you have to do something extremely horrid that completely dishonors your family. Like murder, big counts of theft or even the r.
Or pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15 : 32 - 36.)
Or a woman not being a virgin when married (Deuteronomy 22 : 20 - 21).
@@ConservativeMirror okay watch IP s other videos on this topic, and its hilarious you use christian morals to judge Jewish morals, but use it to disprove christianity. Do you realize how insane that is ? What i think its good come from Christianity but i hate Christianity because its evil because of my judaism misinterpretation!
@@ConservativeMirroryou would be stoned for violating the Sabbath because its Gods holy day of rest so when someone breaks it they are 1. Being selfish and prioritizing themselves and 2. Insulting God. A non virgin would be stoned because she lied about being a virgin and could give her new husband a std or baby trap him with another mans baby.
@@ConservativeMirror did you watch the video?
Please, this passage is NOT about someone's child being "rude" or even "drinking a little too much."
It is about ELDER ABUSE.
And, as IP said, the laws were not meant to be read exactly the way we do today.
Take "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," for example. It is not about an ox, it means even animals (therefore everyone) has the right the get something in return for their work. Silver, sheep, gold, whatever.
Can you imagine someone going: "I told my son to be home by 12:00, he got home at 3:00, so you know....".
Did god come down and tell you all this or is it just your opinion?
@@salserokorsou it’s called common sense if you use the historical context. Not that hard, just listen to biblical scholars without an ego.
@@bsapavel6880 it's called making up crap to defend an evil god.
@@salserokorsou I hope you realize one day just how arrogant you are to judge God and His actions. God Bless
@@bsapavel6880 is drowning innocent children and babies evil?
Let's see how you judge that action.
One law I do obey is, "Do not do anything that would endanger your neighbor's life." That one covers a multitude of actions and temptations.
Point three: the verse is mis quoted. It does not say child, it indicates they are repeatedly drunk and unruley, and imply the elders have done everything they can to marketer opportunity for change.
@@karlmordaunt8029 i didnt know children were immune to alcohol
@@belphemmore3802seriously hahaha Their height and their lack of money does put a damper on much of their whims guy hahaha get a gripe
@@RambleChristianPodcast kids cant afford a gun, they must be immune to getting shot by that logic.
@@belphemmore3802 children did not consume alcohol
@@escapegulag4317 source?
So basically the Old Testament isn't recommending the punishments be enforced, but rather the punishments themselves show us the level of severity the corresponding sin has in the eyes of God.
Yes
We see the example when the adultress was brought before Jesus to be stoned. That's what Christians are supposed to do.
I’ve never thought about it that way
That's a perspective I've thought of for a long time, cool 🤔
That explains a lot,Just like King David didn't get the Torah prescribed punishment of Adultery!
He did way more than adultery. Lots of jews believe the Messiah they believe is coming will actually be a sinner because something about a sacrifice in a temple for him
@@magichobbiest3425 the idea is they believe they are capable of redeeming themselves before god "alone"... despite the many complications that come with it
@@reyis_here945 nicely explained ty🙏🏻...
It's true that King David was not charged with adultery, yet God gave King David a hard time for the Sins he committed
Because the Torah says there needs to be 2 to 3 witnesses. Only Nathan knew what David did
Also, you wanna include this. Child is not a 5 year old but a fully functioning adult and has committed some grave crime. Not just petty crimes.
@@gabriel.notfound so a man child
@@reyis_here945 Bruh, a child is a child. If you were a father. Your 20 year old son would still be your child. Not all childs are 5 year olds yk. (This may be a joke and I maybe missing it)
@@reyis_here945 however I can see where the confusion arises. The author here was using the definition a son or daughter of any age, not a young offspring of an adult.
In which book is this?
@@reyis_here945 you either don’t know what a man child is or you’re completely illiterate 😭 a fully functioning adult is not a man child
Good point. The more one can understand about the context of the culture in which it was written the better.
Pray for this man and others like him.
@@misseli1 we alone cannot save this man I hope he finds Christ one day... and repentance for his dishonesty
Tbh, he seems off. He seems like a robot. Something is off about him. That doesn’t sit right with me. And I’m speaking this in the name of Holy Spirit. Something is off with that guy.
@@christopherestrada2474 and I don't think it's generalized Asperger's, I honestly think it's more severe than that
@@reyis_here945 good point. Might be severe Asperger’s
@@PurpleHeart99Yeah axp isn't the best place for religious discussion, mainly because the people who call aren't knowledgeable in theology.
People forget the Torah is a code of civil law, moral law, and ceremonial law. We literally see in the Torah that men would be put on trial by the elders to determine crimes. That is civil law, it can change. Ceremonial laws change with the covenants, and moral law is eternal.
Another thing is that that passage talks about late teens to adults and not children as in kids, because it also says "if they get drunk" (something like that)
So should they be executed or not? If yes that is pretty barbaric and if not why has god changed his mind on morality if he represents an objective morality?
@@ewanwolyniec2304 Again, the stoning rules are not literal. They would be deserving of that punishment, but it would not actually be carried out. Otherwise, David would have been stoned to death for adultery.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 So they are deserving of such punishment and if they did stone people for they they didn’t do anything wrong then right? Not just that but in numbers 15:32-36 they find a man collecting sticks on the sabbath and god directly commands Moses and Aaron to stone him to death I presume you agree that was just and right then?
More important fact is that ancient law codes in general tended to give the death penalty for every offense. But no one took the penalty literally.
A well known anecdote is about Draco, the author of the infamous “Draconian Code” which is the earliest known code for Athens. This code gives the death penalty for pretty much everything including the ancient equivalent of littering and jaywalking. This is why the word “draconian” means “harsh or severe”
According to legend Draco justified his code by saying “ I think minor offenses are worthy of death and I can’t think of a worse penalty for major offenses”
But there is no evidence that these penalties were ever carried out.
@@Michael-bk5nz to be fair the only difference between that and today is that the only thing stopping in is legality
@@reyis_here945 no, ancient law is not like modern law, the penalties attached are not prescriptive in the way modern laws are, they were more symbolic, saying that you will be killed for doing something was more a way of saying “this is really bad”, it was like parents saying “stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” which taken literally is child abuse, but kids know they are not going to be beaten
@@Michael-bk5nz I'm not saying self-defense is the same as manslaughter (regardlessof time period), I'm saying its not like those concepts are brand new or completely original
@@reyis_here945 the laws were not prescriptive they are mere case law
I remember a story in the bible where a women found guilty of adultery was about to stoned to death by people but maybe I'm just misremembering or you are not being honest. It's in the bible btw. Gospel of Mathew if I remember correctly.
Edit: So yeah, idk about no one took the penalty seriously there. I think they did.
Just watched the Ruslan kd podcast vid w ip, and he explained this same thing there. Keep it up ip
Respond to Dan's recent video accusing Christians of being arbitrary regarding this topic
What did he say in it?
@@BongBing11 if it's anything like the last roundabout with Jones...
Probably something to do with "vegans eating meat"... again
@@BongBing11 Based on what he said here, probably that if you don't take a literal, word for word understanding of every book of the bible then you're being inconsistent.
Well, I'd like to know why is it wrong to be arbitrary apart from the Christian worldview, since God is the only rational basis for logic and morality to begin with.
God is non-arbitrary in His thinking, and since we are made in His image, He expects us to be non-arbitrary as well.
Unfortunately, there are Christians that behave arbitrarily, by not holding the Bible as their ultimate standard, for example. But this has no relevancy to whether or not the Bible is true, so Dan is probably engaging in the fallacy of abusive ad hominem.
I would ask Dan to give an account of his worldview, and ask if his worldview can provide rational justification for either absolute morality or laws of logic.
@@calebandrews490 that doesn't mean Muslims or Atheist are actually Christians, that just means people in general suck at following his rules
wait we were supposed to stop doing that? uh…
💀💀
💀💀💀
Jesus didn’t abolish the law so… I guess
@@KSA_175x but what is the law? most people think its everything the jews wrote. but what if it just meant the 10 commandments?
many of the other texts in the torah were expansions of the law as then people saw fit, just like how God banned divorce but the people wanted it to be legalized.
there were records of jews making a law about the sabbath where carrying anything heavier than an egg would be considered work, and thus breaking the sabbath rest. that is just one example. jesus himself showed in many instances to be breaking these laws that the jews added to the commandments, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath, eating with unclean hands, befriending people who should be shunned, and so on..
most people dont take the time to understand context, sad but thats just how life is nowadays, people only want to believe their first assumption
@@KSA_175x He didn't abolish the moral law, we are no longer under the ceremonial and judicial laws, otherwise we would still be required to make sacrifices, get circumcised, etc. The whole NT shows that those aren't necessary.
>pronouns in bio dude trying to talk down religion
@@Uebagi that's not the worst thing he's done he's intellectually dishonest on alot of his claims
Irony is astronomical
@@reyis_here945can you give me an example so I can check?
Dont make Fun of the blind help them see
@@martinhosilvadesouza9193 and he makes "himself" deaf?
Hey IP. I'd like to ask a clarifying question.
If you are saying that the mosiac law was to represent an ideal law structure, does that mean that the stoning of children was meant to be ideal or are you saying it was more of a teaching tool rather than a "here's how things would be in a perfect world"? For the former, stoning children would be seen as ideal. For the latter, the Torah would be using an extreme example to make a point about how children should treat thier parents in an ideal world.
Love your content and keep bringing the Biblical/logical Sass.
EDIT: i just re-warched the short a couple times. Nevermind. i missed it the first time. Keep up the great work dude 👍
@@benellison6232 this "kinda" off base, but still relevant to the discussion, we have to accept the reality that even today "people put their infants in dumpsters" (and yes I'm saying that as an extreme, but I'm also acknowledging that it does happen... and that it's evidence of stagnancy)
@@LilySage-mf7uf no one is defending that
And the same goes for leaving children ,let alone newborns, to die alone... and yet both still happen to day
Plus the punishment of Sin is death. If you disobey your parents it is a sin. Thankfully Jesus took our place and died in our place so we don’t have to die for the sins we commit.
What if your parents are awful? I think if your parents are really bad parents and don't give you good advice, than disobeying them is what you should do.
@@enderdude7828 Ephesians 6:1 should give you a bit of clarity
"Obey your parents in the Lord"
The acceptable disobedience is only when obeying the Lord goes against obeying your parents, because God has a higher priority. Also advice is different from a command, you can disregard anyone's advice at any time, doesn't mean it's wise to do so. If your parents provide bad advice, you should seek better advisors, people who are actually wise. And even in disobedience or disregarding, treat them with honor and respect, never failing the command to honor them and the command to love them as yourself.
@@enderdude7828 "honor you mother and mother and father"... does this have anything to do with "you" being the worst possible version of yourself?
Remember; for all you atheists out there that are actually beginning to see the Light- you must be reborn to live under God's Grace, for you are Justified.
@@shadosnakenah, parents are overexalted. You treat them with the exact amount of respect and honor they provide
"He/Him." That says it all.
I would say it was just the podcast he was on... but considering his response to Matt Walsh... he tends the contradictory reasoning
Atheist experience made me religious
@@dariusga6752 they keep people religious with all the misinformation they pedal
You're either lying or you're very bad at thinking.
@@DarkMatter2525 or youre just arrogamt
@@DarkMatter2525I now understand op's comment.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
I literally watched your video on this yesterday, haha.
He has a video on the mosaic law?
@@williamsaporetti A whole playlist.
@@TrivialCoincidence link?
@@williamsaporettiua-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUhTlvIkuRaRFjqYUG_fy6E.html&si=xzo6JQbAf6V4MGt1
Psalms 19:7 NIV
The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Greatly explained
Thank you for that explanation
If you read the passge fully it talks about the child being drunk and something else its wasnt talking about when a child is acting like a brat it's a grown man dishourning and disgracing hes parents
The Talmud mentions this but also expands that since it says 'a son' but not a father, it only applies to those that are legally adults but not yet a married, ie, still living in their father's house. Some sages even further add it doesn't apply to anyone who COULD be a father, regardless of whether they actually are, and thus it applies only to a 40 week period immediately after coming of age. Not sure I buy that last one.
I do caution that 'grown' in this case is often taken as the bar mitzvah age, ie, 13
@@professorhaystacks6606 where did you get that from I doubt when talking about a drunk person it's refering to a 13 yr old.
And where did you hear it's necessarily not a father
This is the same thing Muslims do they point to Jewish sources without actually giving references to their claims from the SCRIPTURES
In some cases, "son" can be used to refer to a man who is already married, especially in a context where the speaker is emphasizing their relationship or authority over the man. For example:
- In Genesis 32:5, Jacob refers to his sons as "my sons" even though they are grown men with their own families.
- In Exodus 21:5, a slave is referred to as the "son" of his master, even if he is an adult.
- In 1 Samuel 24:11, David refers to Saul's servants as "sons" even though they are adults.
And yes 13 was the legal age of adulthood in those time that action of him getting drunk enforces the view that he's not just a teenager or a child that doesn't know what he's doing
Still not punishable by death
My replies keep deleting
@@MarkelMathurin niether is leave your child to die, but that still happened
The only difference here is that was a legal law
And that's if we're being literal about the Hebrew word child
This was well done IP !! perfection was never the answer. scholars seem to stating a Law/Gospel paradigm. Kudos!
Why are people STILL asking 2000 years later why Christians don't follow the old covenant? It's like they never tried to gain even a sunday school level of understanding.
Because Christians still use the old covenant to justify their moral beliefs.
I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus agreed with the old testament stating that he was here not to change but to uphold the law and that not one thing should be changed. Pick easier targets.
And tha law only ever applies to israel . It's says that in the old testament .
Omgosh, thank you- Thank God for you - you are brilliant.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t the verse following say, “He is a drunkard and a slugger?” I think it’s safe to say that we’re not talking literal kids.
Also, if I remember correctly, this verse was talking about bestowing actual curses on your parents, not just your casual teen rebellion.
@@paulnash6944 it does says what you mention. Skeptics always take those parts out , they never show the full context.
@@carloswater7 You both seem to think that the bible never claims that God commanded the Israelites to literally kill infants.
It's odd that Internet Atheists feel so eager to cite Biblical-era Old Testament standards, and the history about that, but most of their arguments consist of incorrect assumptions outside of what Old Testament scholars directly say about these issues.
Honestly I think this response is kind of missing the point of the critique.
Like... If God tells you to kill your child for disobeying. Is it better or worse if people actually follow that command regularly?
Well no... God is still telling you to do something terrible, he is sanctioning a terrible act regardless if people actually did it.
I mean imagine if a different God told his followers in a holy book that any person that reads the bible should get a death penalty.
Would it really matter if people actually performed this act when you criticize that religion or that God?
He is not criticizing the laws of an ancient civilization, he is criticizing the morality of a religion and a God.
That's like in the old testament when God told Abraham to walk up the hill and kill his son Isaac like a sacrifice, very sad.. Then just when he was about to do it God stopped Abraham telling him he didn't have to actually do it, and made a goat run up the mountain to him.
The chapters always called Isaac his "only" son, his heir. So his father being made to sacrifice his only son for a 'good cause' sounds like a parallel to God the Father & Jesus. Harsh event to go through in life, but it's there.. realistic as they say 🥲
ed: anyway that's a good distinction you brought up there, important perspective to think of for us I think. 🤔
@@unripetheberrby6283 Well yeah that is one time God spared a child, but he did killed multiple children in the bible directly or by ordering someone else to do it. Of course like the first born of egypt, the children mauled by bears by command of elisha, the genocide of the canaanites including the children etc. I mean if we want a closer paralel to the abrahamic story, in the book of judges 11 jephthah did sacrificed her only child to God because he promised he would do it if God helps him with a war, and he did sacrifice his only child. And God didn't stop that one.
Regardless if these events happened or not... and if one is an atheist or a secular scholar they think most likely didn't happen. Still it is a completely valid criticism to criticize the morality of a God who is written to do these things or who is said to command these things.
I love Paul's teaching that the value of the law is to teach you good and bad, but we are under the new covenant and should just strive to be good. I study strictly as a lense to the past.
Ah the classic “old covenant scary why Christian hypocrites”
These people never registered to actually ask that question and understand the Christian position
@@undolf4097 nothing but "gotcha" question, specifically from this guy
@@reyis_here945i think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that these gotcha questions aren't really an effective means of persuasion when your audience can look up answers to these quick and often simplistic "gotcha" questions. it seems the level of discourse is slowly being elevated. tbat mihht just be wishful thinkong though
@@kaufmanat1 anyone you're still values the validity of these questions... is mostly asking on Reddit so it's becoming a much smaller group
@undolf4097 if this guy doesn't believe old Jews followed Mosaic laws than how did Jesus save a woman from being stoned to death for adultery?
@@beelance8057 if they DID follow mosaic law, how did jesus save her? wouldn't they have just stoned her? you just proved his point. it wasnt a codified set of laws like we think of today.
Thank you for all you do❤
The punishment of sin is death, separation from God after your life. Anytime in the law the word death apears it's not refering about ppls killing you, it's about the sin itself
The mental gymnastics are insane. "Death doesn't mean death". God is omnipresent, but you'll be "separated" from him. Religion actively impairs reason.
@@DarkMatter2525 I rlly don't know how this works tbh, that's what my religion teaches 2Tes 1:9"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might".Keep coping with eternal atoms, or the absurdity of big bang(atheist version)
Many objections from skeptics are based on simply misunderstanding ancient writing.
Skim reading has become a real problem in the skeptic community
Many defenses from theists are based on simply misrepresenting ancient writing.
@@reyis_here945 Lying has become a real problem in the theist community. And by "become" I mean "always was".
In addition, existing cultural conventions probably allowed for worse - in all likelihood a father would have been justified in just beating his son to death without the need to bring his case to the elders at the gate. This law built upon the "do not murder" commandment and likely had the effect of forcing fathers to think clearly before doing anything rash. This was not a command to stone your child if he was disobedient but almost the exact opposite - extreme measures can only be taken after a due process was followed. Much of the law begins with a situation that sounds like established fact but is instead an allegation, and this is one of those kinds of laws.
@@davidreinker5600 this reasoning applies to everyone, even to today... and that is what people have forgotten
@@reyis_here945 What do you mean?
@@davidreinker5600 (not a justification) we still have capital punishment
This channel is 🔥 keep it up 🙌
Is nobody gonna talk about the atheist looks like scott tenorman from south park 😂😂😂
@@thegreatguldo9956 ive notice that he looks sickly... it could just be a video edit or because he's Ginger or something... but still
Great explanation!
they were prescriptive. God is not giving people hypotheticals.
The Lord Jesus Christ said the law should be obeyed without neglecting the most important parts of the law which is judgment, mercy and faith. Matthew 23:23
@@DelmyTreeCutter not entirely, and what Christ is saying here is not properly illuminated in context either
3rd reason. It doesn't say "child".. but son and specifies "glutton", "drunkard", "rebellious", and "WILL NOT LISTEN".. this applies to grown ass men.
Why is it ok for skeptics to cherry-pick the bible ? ... isn't that against their own rules?
@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w that expecting them to be consistent in first place
That same passage also refers to the child as a “glutton and a drunkard.” People in Israel weren’t doing this thing to their 10 year-old son who didn’t put his toys away. It would have been done to someone who was always drunk and ate more food than the rest, likely causing others to starve and thus making him a murderer.
This is an interesting perspective, but wouldn't "it was meant to educate us on what justice would look like in an ideal setting" contradict your take on why slavery is not abolished as a part of the law? Your take on items such as slavery abolition was that the law was never meant to be perfect. But this new video says the law was meant to illustrate perfect or ideal circumstances. Am I missing something that reconciles these two views on the law?
Yes we "still" utilize capital punishment today... its still not divine law
I’ve taken laws like the one mentioned here as a way of taking judgement away from individuals (angry parents) and giving it to the community which would likely be more level headed
This again.🙄 when will they understand.
They don't want to understand. They get very short with callers and try to use "gotcha" moments more than anything.
@@PurpleHeart99so can I ignore the ten commandments? Is that not under the old covenant? Wat else in the old testament can I ignore? Sin? Why do I have to jump thru hoops to understand?
@@theparodychannel7842 The ten commandments were to help the tribe of Israel learn how to live. The greatest commandments we have is to love God and others. The ten commandments do not have to be followed to a t but it makes sense to follow it. We have the greatest peace when we come to christ. So it makes sense not to put any idols before Him. It makes sense to treat your parents well. It is loving to not commit adultery against your spouse. It is good not to covet. We should love God and not take His name in vain. I know it is a lot to take in. I promise, God is good. He saved me more times than I can count. He loves you and I love you too.
I’ll make sure to save this video for when you try using the OT laws for your own identity politics.
I still don't think that "it was just an example" works well as a defense of a code that presents stoning your child for disobedience as a good idea.
It's good that you personally believe in an upgraded moral code, but that bit is still a barbaric and primitive moral code.
- it's not a child, it's a grown man who lived with his parents, try to use that as an excuse to get out of punishment
- It's a "cultural law"
- And we still use capital punishment today ( and I'm not justifying it) primarily for sexual assailants
You contradicted the correct, 2nd point by the mistaken 1st point. Its a collection for judicial guidance, or better, it is a rule of justice BUT "In Your wrath, remember mercy." It all goes together. Those laws are 100% relevant now. Its a civil law that worked - we should do it, "remembering mercy".
That is a huge cope and has to be teetering on heresy of some kind.
I'm 40 years old. I'm still my parent's child.
It's a fine line, between no one following God's Word on these matters because they're sinful Human beings who mess up.
And IP's possibility, that it was never intended to be seriously followed exactly.
I'm not sure if I should agree...
Although, i agree that it could make sense.
This is what I hate about atheist scientists on UA-cam thinking that just because they refute young earth creationism means they can talk about any topic related to religion
Yeah that guy’s ego is inflated. Atheists really do need him though- they’re struggling when it comes to debates.
So you can't take criticism? Get over your ego.
@@gianni206lmfao nah literally in the thousands of debates christians have lost literally 100% of them. I mean it's a MASSACRE this has long been a victorious war.
@@gianni206christians don't understand what things like critical thought or peer review even mean. So actually watching a debate with knowledge of how a debate works is maddening with christians because they don't understand basic ideas about how facts become accepted as facts.
@@gamemasterultima except when the criticism is based on bad interpretation of scripture. I guess you atheists can’t accept that you aren’t Steven hawking just because you don’t believe in god
In this particular law, the emphasis is on “the PEOPLE will stone him (implying a trial will take place), not the parents”. The parents cannot judge the child’s sin for themselves.
Nice 👍
Wow! Thank you!
We follow the moral law 💜
I think a good reminder is that while some commands from the Old Testament are still echoed in the New, we are still not to punish these sins with death. For example, the command against adultery still stands, but Christ had compassion on the woman who committed adultery and told her to go and sin no more. I think we need to do the same with people who commit similar sins condemned in both Testaments. Have compassion, and tell them to go sin no more.
@@misseli1 we also need to understand thats Gods patience and compassion runs thin... specifically when you're doing terrible in the Old Testament
keep it up. Atheist Experience is a joke
@@dnjelly1063 real Scholars, nah thier real comedian...
This is also why we have the Talmud. A series of legal discussions and debates between many different experts and Rabbis over many centuries on how to interpret the Tanakh. Not everything in the Talmud is written in stone though. You oftentimes find one Rabbi say one thing but another says the complete opposite and sometimes even a third opinion alongside that. Plus, many things in the Tanakh and even in the Gospels have to be taken in a specific cultural and linguistic context, which the first guy (not IP) clearly is unaware of, either on knowingly or not
Why don't I do x? Because I like to read the whole Bible in as much context as possible.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
John 3:16-21; John 14:6-7; Ephesians 2:8-9
Ip will you respond to sword of merciful new video and auron about the concouest of Joshua
@@HarisPant-i3h who?
Stones ares "hard" ideas, to die from stoning is akin to Paul who said "I die daily" - the ego perishes removing fraud/gyp, availing you to what IsReal
>he/him
Stopped there.
The transformation of the old testament over the years is crazy. I wonder why?
Many Atheist will say we’re being biased and we only want to follow the good parts 🤦♂️ we are under a New Covenant
@@Cheemz1 worse if thier biased in favor of Forrest v.
You are biased. You csn use the new covenant excuse all you like, but if the buble is gods word, you should, logicslly, follow his example. I mean who elses example would you follow if not his? And you csnt question the genocide hes done since youre quesrioning god and thats a huge no no. Why only follow certain things and not others?
@@brentjones905 bud, are you ok or are you having a stroke... I'm serious
@@reyis_here945 surprised you didn't point out all the unnecessary and purposeful grammar mistakes. Seems you have a bad habit of pointing out the unnecessary. Or being fixated on the wrong issues. You may want to change that. Your claims and the claims you follow aren't going to help your case
@@brentjones905 the ones you just fixed a minute ago from me typing this... or do you have something to actually add to the conversation
It's also illegal to murder someone The Ten Commandments thou shall not kill
Christ fulfilled the law, and we live under a new covenant. One of love and forgiveness and the pursuit of salvation through Christ.
Also, the parodical son was not stoned for his disrespect. He was welcomed back with open arms when he repented.
It's called "prodigal"
So I guess we going to ingore the 10 Commandments which is in the old testament and ingnore what Moses did after he received them
Glad to hear that God developed a moral fibre as society evolved.
The atheist also completely left out the part where the parents in this hypothetical situation explicitly state their son is a drunkard and trouble maker... So he's not a child and is a genuine menace to society. This is not about children
@@LilySage-mf7uf read my comment again. It's not talking about some "mere disobedience." It's discussing someone who is not only in open rebellion to parents but the entire community through their behavior. They are a drunkard and poison to the community, not a child with authority issues or someone who talks back on occasion. Also, refer back to what IP said. It's not a strict law code, but moreso judicial wisdom and guidance. It's not a hard fast rule. So it would not also be the case that a drunken degenerate would be executed. He might also be spared. It would come down to the circumstances and the full story that the judges would gain through investigation
It also assumes that "unruly" means general disobedience, which simply is not that case
If that applies for everyone, the guy at the beginning of the video wouldn't be alive! He doesn't look like roll model of a son!
Verse 20 says ‘he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’
It’s clearly not talking about a small child being stone for a temper tantrum. This is a grown man. Probably guilty of all sorts of other crimes as well.
Every apologist's explanation for any Biblical difficulty: "It doesn't really mean that."
Probably because it actually doesn't... making another problem your claim to begin with
Well, that's what an academic says, not an apologist. We wouldn't say that if atheists didn't insist on the ignorance that the entire Bible is literal
@@AbyssicHate112 also Forest V. has been proven to be intellectually dishonest... the validity of his claims have been called into question by academics and non-academics of the like
@@reyis_here945 Just by seeing that he has pronouns in his presentation, I know its a waste of time
@@AbyssicHate112 what's funny about that specifically... he did it like a "20 minute video" regarding how much "he doesn't care about it"
Also when it says child it means teenager/young adult because it's says they are drunkyards. God bless ✝️
This is where he loses me, because he is taking the worst of the scholars out there with the least Biblical validity, not because they are accurate or theologically correct, but because it appeals best to modern ears.
He does this every time he reaches a verse or section that is uncomfortable, explaining it away as being not literal or symbolic.
You're doing the same thing you're accusing him of, this explanation is also backed not just by scholarship but also history
You made the claim that the scholars validity is unchecked... by who (specifically)
@@prestonyannotti7661 Tough to answer specific claims by specific people since he just says "scholars" without listing any of them.
The shellfish polyester argument is the loudest way to signal that you haven’t actually read the Bible.
The second loudest way is to shout it at the top of your lungs.
Our modern society’s idea of unruly and the ancient worlds idea of unruly are very ,VERY Different!!!
He’s asking the question but it’s not because he wants the actual answer.
Simple answer, best said by Christ himself. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Great input
The Talmud specifically says that the case of the Rebellious Son never actually occurred, since there were too many required details for a case to qualify. Similarly, an Eye for an Eye was never taken literally.
I notice he left out the part where the parents (plural) are to say to the elders "this son of ours is a glutton and a drunkard" - i.e. the part that clearly shows this is case law for ADULT children, not young unruly kids.
Color me shocked at the dishonesty.
The scripture states that the parents say, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." So it was obviously not about a child.
Should the punishment still be death then?
@@ewuraamaetruwaasam7084 If you read and follow the Bible’s text and context, Christians are not under the old covenant of the Law, which served as the first step away from ancient polytheistic religions, they are under the new covenant of the Gospel of Faith, which served as the second step away from ritualistic religions, so we do not put any people to death any more.
Galatians, read pauls response to peters hypocrisy about the circumcized.
While this response is correct IP. The underlying argument he is making is "if you follow part of the book, you should follow all of the book".
And this is a major source of confusion generally across christendom even though its entirely addressed by paul in galatians in his treatise on faith vs law.
Taken together both your explanations and galatians paints a vastly different picture of what Jewish faith was at the time, as well as just how deadly the literalism and legalism of the sanhedrin was..
Love these shorts, im a long time fan and have frequently quoted your videos and apologetics growing up. Thank you.
Another point it took the allocation of punishment away from the parent solely and placed it before a jury aka the elders of the town. Something Islam does not do.
It is written "The life of a murderer may not be redeemed." This implies the life of someone who commits any OTHER death-penalty crime COULD be redeemed. I don't know enough about ancient near-eastern culture to know what that would entail, though.
I know we shouldn't compare it but we compare it to the modern era of that region... practically most crime
The guy completely ignored the important parts of that passage:
1. The child is brought by the parents before the judges (i.e. The law takes the power to kill away from the parents and into the court)
2. The accusation is "he is a glutton" (among other things) which, in a knife-edge culture where people were just above the starvation line, meant he was an indirect murderer. By being a glutton, he ate too much and someone starved. This was not a mere "unruliness". It was far more serious than that.
"the Bible specifically says..."
*Proceeds to be nonspecific in describing what the Bible says.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is the reference. The condemned is a drunkard and a glutton as well. Clearly the child is not a five year old. It is a grownup child.
What the first guy was saying was a massive understatement of the situation it was describing. Yes, it was if the child wouldn't listen to their parents, but it was more than that. It was them being stubborn and rebellious, and rebellious back then probably meant a whole lot more than it does now, and if pretty much every other method was attempted to dissuade them, and nothing worked. The type of person being described there was the type of person who'd almost certainly end up getting someone in the community killed by one method or another. And again, it's a last resort once pretty much everything else had been attempted.
Also, while Israel didn't necessarily follow the Torah all of the time, that doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to. That being said, from a modern Christian perspective, those laws in the Torah were, I'm fairly certain, directed as legal laws which Israel was to have. But the Israel of today, and pretty much every other country, has different legal laws which we are to be submit to.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a circumstance in which it is morally okay to stone a child to death?
I mean that is what you are defending right? Saying that this child was probably not only disobeying but he was doing all of this other stuff.
That stuff then morally justified stoning him to death?
@@diegog1853 I think you're misunderstanding what the word "child" means. The context is using it to refer to offspring. In that way, literally everyone is a child of someone.
@@abbadon9693 okay... What you said didn't change anything at all. Including adults in a punishment doesn't make the punishment for children any better... I mean unless you are arguing that the passage implicitly excludes children which would be quite a dishonest interpretation of the text in my opinion.
So again are you saying that there are some circumstances in which stoning to death offspring (in particular children) is justified?
Like that is what your argument boils down to right? That under these other circumstances you are mentioning it is justified, but under the other circumstances it is not.
Exactly. Life of David and prophets prove that they never really followed the Law.
I'm with you, up to the point where it was suggested the law was not executed. It's clear that the Sanhedren of Christ's day were strictly observing the Torah.
The important point was that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so much of that law was never Christian.
Crazy how many people don’t understand covenant theology.
It doesn't say in Hebrew merely that if a son is unruly, but if he curses his parents, in the sense of him wanting them to die. Also, every law can be conditional and ruled a difficult case, due to other factors - being provoked purposely by parents in this case. We are to be informed by the Old Testament, the only Scriptures the Church had at first, except for the original compendium of JESUS' Sayings Matthew recorded during HIS Ministry, but even it tells us of the latter days and in those to listen to SOMEONE giving a Covenant in those days. In the Torah, "do these things for ever" is translating "le'olam", meaning for the age, not "le'ed", meaning for eternity.
Absolam may be the only example of someone killed for wanting his father dead. David didn't want him dead, but Joab killed him, and it seems that the details show Joab was in the wrong, because David should have killed Amnon for raping Tamar, but felt too guilty over Bathsheba to do so, so Absolam had to deal justice to Amnon instead and hated his father for not lilling a rapist who raped Absolam's sister. It was a very difficult case. Not one case of that law in effect has ever been recorded. Joab was judged misusing it for politics, and David had him killed for misusing the claim against his son.